Jump to content
The real issue is federal preemption so his concerns are valid and no medical treatment provider is about any thing but profit. So we shouldn't hold MMJ to a higher standard IMO. Both the Beinor and Watkyns cases are now the law of the land and amendment 64 does not address either case as the rulings were after amendment 64 had title set. Simply put amendment 64 cannot be implemented legally. Additionally amendment 64 leaves 98% of the laws created to enforce the federal prohibition of MJ on the books and stops no felony arrests and would even bar you from having what ever you grow at your home as vaguely suggested in amendment 64.
You have to ask your self what is prohibition legally speaking and what does this do to "stop" it? The answer is very very little if any thing at all. Most people think with their emotions and that is not how the law works. The majority of those arrested are young males of color below 21 and this provides no relief for them at all. Amendment 64 does not "regulate marijuana like alcohol" legally speaking and any one who wants to debate that can listen to the proponents admit that themselves at the title board hearings which were recorded and posted on the secretary of state site here
Last login: Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2016 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.
Tablet version |